Gah, thank you for bringing this to our attention, and for your own insightful ranting (which was way more coherent than the original Amazing Girl "critique"). The whole thing felt like the author had a personal axe to grind against women who, for whatever reason, she felt she'd been compared to and didn't measure up. I expected her to question the Amazing Girl's manipulative aspects, or suggest that their appeal is rooted in some heteronormative ideal of nurturing, tender-hearted femininity. But...no. She seemed offended by the very existence of women who weren't "mean and opinionated." (Which seems like an inverse form of sexism. She doesn't like women who don't hold what are considered to be traditionally "male" qualities? WTF?)

The whole article gave me whiplash. She bounces between a veiled critique against maternal feminism (which is a valid one, I think) and then slips into this weird acknowledgment of her own shame and jealousy, which she seems to think is entirely internally-motivated. (Which just made me want to slap her and say, "Look, stop being an asshole, okay?")

Anyway, yes to what everyone else has said. The original rant was poorly written, the point was non-existent, and I still don't understand why, exactly, it's bad to be an Amazing Girl. (Not that I am. Scarves don't work on me. I look like a reject from a the fabric department at a second-rate home decor shop!)